Amos,

I am sorry if my logic is so far above your understanding. The point was that it seems ok to act on inadaquate information in the case of GW, but not in the case of WMDs. In BOTH cases, a great many lives are in danger. You seem to think it ok to risk millions, just to make a political point.

This seems wrong to me on both points. The information is more than adequate in the case of our gradually warming environment, but is often rejected by those who do not wish to believe hard science; in the case of Iraq the information was fictitious and the facts were rejected by those who had a jones for manslaughter that they could not satisfy otherwise.

As for your logic being beyond my understanding, I don't think that is likely, given that we are both (presumably) intelligent humans.

Sunspots? Do you have any hard evidence that there is statistical correlation AND causal connection between GW and sunspot activity?
Without a hard-nosed analysis supporting such a claim I would venture it is typical shell-game pseudo-science from a list of party talking points.

A